Who can get married in a civil union?

[davefoc]

There's a lot of talk about civil unions and gay marriage these days.

Most of the people on this forum seem pretty open to at least making civil unions availabe to gays if not marriage.

So exactly what does this mean?

There are lots of people living in long term relationships now that would not as the laws stand be eligible for marrirage.

For instance, two older sisters living together in a caring long term relationship without sex. Can they get one of these new civil unions and start being able to file joint income tax returns?

How about two roommates, one who makes a little more than the other. Can they get one of these civil unions and use it as a basis for filing jointly. How far can people go with prenuptial arrangements to eliminate parts of the civil union contract they're not happy with?

What about a mother taking care of her adult disabled child. Might be really good for them if they could get a civil union, especially if she could the child on to her health insurance with this idea.

Are these absurd scenarios that won't happen? Will eventually access to civil unions need to be limited to prevent abuses? Were the scenarios I listed abusive? I truly don't know. I was just wondering what other people thought about this?

Do the gays in this forum have strong opinions about this issue? Do you feel discriminated against now because the law doesn't allow you to marry. Would you feel slighted if all that was available was a civil union and not a marriage, even though the rights were the same in both contracts?

[Cleopatra]

I am having this discussion in Infidels, this is a matter that interests me a lot.

The need for legal agreements ( civil unions) that describe the nature of the co-existence of two individuals spings from the fact that there are social privileges that only people who live together in a relationship that is described and approved by law can enjoy.

In my opinion this constitutes a discrimination against the citizens who want to live alone and I favor the abolishment of any notion of civil union.

As you pointed out Dave, gay marriages opened the box of Pandora. Instead of abolishing the discrimination that wants people separated between married and single we expanded it in order to cover a wider group.

This is wrong. I am for abolishing any notion of union and any right that springs from it.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I am having this discussion in Infidels, this is a matter that interests me a lot.

The need for legal agreements ( civil unions) that describe the nature of the co-existence of two individuals spings from the fact that there are social privileges that only people who live together in a relationship that is described and approved by law can enjoy.

In my opinion this constitutes a discrimination against the citizens who want to live alone and I favor the abolishment of any notion of civil union.

As you pointed out Dave, gay marriages opened the box of Pandora. Instead of abolishing the discrimination that wants people separated between married and single we expanded it in order to cover a wider group.

This is wrong. I am for abolishing any notion of union and any right that springs from it.

I would really like to be dismissive of this point of view - but I find that I cannot. It is most thought provoking.

I, for one, was happy to form a union with Mrs. Don and would have done so even if this conferred no additional legal rights. This is because I wanted to make a legally binding commitment to her.

Many of the desirable rights (here in the UK filing for tax separately has been the way to go for a while) relate to the fact that assets are considered to be shareable between a couple so that residual pension rights and assets can be passed on after a loved one's death.

This is based upon the premise that one of the couple has had to give up a proportion of their earning potential to look after the family (the younger members of which will provide for us all in our retirement) but this is exactly the case for all unpaid or underpaid carers and therefore not that unusual.

I agree that couples joined in a union should have no additional rights. Assets owned by one member of the couple should be subject to inheritance tax upon the death of the other partner. Because more people will be paying inheritance tax, the threshold will go up considerably.

It should also be the responsibility of a working spouse to ensure that a non-working spouse is adequately provided for in terms of setting up a separate pension fund (possibly enforced at 50% of their contributions) which would have the added benefit of making the process of asset division considerably easier if the relationship breaks up.

I also feel that a union should provide no additional rights an responsibilities as regards joint or single children. THis should be covered by separate agreements implemented on a child by child basis. This means that in the case of stepchildren, the biological parents could retain 100% "ownership" or allocate across the extended families as required. Furthermore these "parental" rights could them be passed on as part of the estate.

[davefoc]

Good grief, the first two responders to this post are shanek sock puppets. :)

OK, maybe not, but the answers took me by surprise. I didn't think we'd have anybody even consider that kind of thing unless shanek chimed in. I was kind of thinking along these lines also but it seems very unlikely that we will ever abandon the notion of state based marriage contracts and while I admit it does solve some problems and remove some inequities I'm not sure that it's the way to go.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I'm in favor of making many different kinds of contracts available, and then removing any programs or aspects of programs that specifically encourage people to take up one of the contracts.

I don't see why civil unions should be abolished - that would prevent the people who wanted them from having them, with little benefit to anyone else - but the civially unified shouldn't have special rights or privileges.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by The Don
I, for one, was happy to form a union with Mrs. Don and would have done so even if this conferred no additional legal rights. This is because I wanted to make a legally binding commitment to her.

I agree that couples joined in a union should have no additional rights. Assets owned by one member of the couple should be subject to inheritance tax upon the death of the other partner. Because more people will be paying inheritance tax, the threshold will go up considerably.

Isn't the first point a bit contradictory? You wanted to make a legally binding commitment and would have done so even if it conferred no legal rights. How can something that confers no legal rights be legally binding?

The problem with the inheritance tax point is the family home. The government does not want to be seen to be forcing recently bereaved people from there homes in order that they can sell them to pay the inheritance tax bill.

I don't see any need to give special rights to couples.

[roger]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
I don't see any need to give special rights to couples. What about the right to make health decisions for the other when they are incapacitated?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by roger
What about the right to make health decisions for the other when they are incapacitated?


This is not a privilege, we are talking about privileges.

I want to add something so as to make Dave certain that I am shanek's shock :D

Historically speaking marriage was used as a medium to impose rules in the following cases:
To specify membership in a nation,to grant or refuse citizenship,to recognize men as household heads,to regulate interacial unions ( this doesn't stand in our days),particularly in USA it was used as a way to regulate and control immigration ( I can expand on that) and above all marriage was used to divide social classes.

In order to sugar coat the pill, the married majority gave to married couples a series of privileges or financial nature mostly.

To make a long story short,in my opinion marriage is the most conservative institution in the History of Humanity and the tool that has contributed to social oppression as nothing else has done and I must express my disappointment towards the gay unions.

I thought that they were more radical.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by roger
What about the right to make health decisions for the other when they are incapacitated?

Don't see the problem. If for a single person you look at their next of kin (normally a parent) then treat a member of a couple exactly the same unless they specify differently. Of course a single person would be equally entitled to do that - for example I have a power of attorney to enable me to make decisions about one of my relatives finances and care in the event they become incapacitated - couples could do the same.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by davefoc
Do the gays in this forum have strong opinions about this issue? Do you feel discriminated against now because the law doesn't allow you to marry. Would you feel slighted if all that was available was a civil union and not a marriage, even though the rights were the same in both contracts?

Lots of people here seem to forget that "slippery slope" is not a valid argument, but rather a classic logical fallacy.
*sigh*

[roger]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Don't see the problem. If for a single person you look at their next of kin (normally a parent) then treat a member of a couple exactly the same unless they specify differently. Of course a single person would be equally entitled to do that - for example I have a power of attorney to enable me to make decisions about one of my relatives finances and care in the event they become incapacitated - couples could do the same. Well, I am not conversant with the issue, but I understand it to be quite important among gay couples. Besides the time and expense of getting power of attorney, it slows down everything at the hospital, because the power of attorney has to be proven. I suppose that is easy enough to do for a slow moving illness like cancer, but not so easy during a heart attack.

I've heard horror stories about the a gay partner being shut-out by the sick person's family, and having no say in health care, burial, etc. I don't really know how much that is a reflection of a serious problem in our society, and how much was just they were too uneducated in the matter to perform a simple legal action.

Anyway, here (http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825) is a list of marriage rights and benefits in the States. I'll say, without really being interested in debating it on a message board, that I find many of them to be reasonable and desirable for a couple who wish to be bonded for life.

[Fade]

My cell phone started ringing in the middle of a conference. I ignored it, focusing on business. Getting calls in the middle of the day were common. A couple hours later, the meeting ended. On my way out, I remembered the phone call and took out my phone. Melissa had called, so I pushed the return call button.

"Hello?" she said.
"Hi Melissa, this is Gary, you called a couple hours ago, what's up?"
"Gary! Very bad news. I think you should sit down for this," the voice on the other said.

A weight seemed to fall on my stomach. I ignored it for the moment.

"I'm sitting, what's wrong?" I asked.
"He.. John is in the hospital. He's hurt pretty bad, he's in surgery now," she replied.
"I.. okay, I'm coming down." I said.
"Okay. I'm with my family about 10 hours drive away, we're driving down right now. We should be there later tonight."
"Thank you, Melissa." I said, and hung up.

I ducked back into the conference room for just a minute to grab my briefcase and keys. My heart started racing as scenarios ran through my mind. I should have held her on the line a few more minutes. Traffic was harsh, my anxiety amplifying every stop, every red light. I willed myself to settle into a numb stupor, I could not fall apart before I know what happened.

The hospital wasn't far away, just a few minutes. By the time I was pulling into it's three level garage, I had calmed myself, and formulated a few questions that would get answers as quickly as possible. I parked the car, walked quickly into the building, and found a nursing station to ask for directions.

They directed me one floor up, intensive care, and gave me the name of an attending physician. I located the elevator and punched the button to take me up one level.

I stopped a nurse walking down the brightly lit hallway.
"Excuse me, my name Gary Smith, I am looking for a man named John Eckert, I was told he was sent here after getting into an accident."
"He's recovering now, actually there's the surgeon over there. His name is Dr. Glen." She motioned to a rather tall man in blue-green smocks looking over a clip-board and speaking with a nurse.
"Thanks." I said.
"Dr. Glen?" I said when I had gotten closer to him.
"Yes? How can I help you?"
"My name is Gary Smith, I'm here to see John Eckert, he was hospitalized here earlier today, some sort of accident, I heard he underwent surgery."
"Eckert? We notified his next of kin."
"Uh, I'm his uh, well very close friend, can I see him please?" I said akwardly.
"I'm sorry only next of kin can see recovering patients outside of visiting hours." he replied.
"Well uh, we've been together for about 15 years, could that count?" I was getting a tad nervous.
"No, policy is very specific. Blood relation or marriage. Feel free to stop by tomorrow, Noon to 6 P.M. and visit."

Before I could respond to this, an over-head speaker paged Dr. Glen to deal with an emergency. He turned and left. I asked the nurse if there was somewhere I could wait. She pointed me to a small waiting room down the hall.

I was there less than 20 minutes, when Dr. Glen returned and said that John had gone into cardiac arrest, but had been revived less than 2 minutes later, so there was virtually no chance of lasting damage.

"He's stable, and looking good." Dr. Glen said to me.
"Could I please see him?" I asked again, much more frantically than I had wanted to sound.
He shrugged, turned away, and told me to wait there.

So I did. The next few hours were surreal to me. I was in the middle of a waiting room with no other people in sight most of the time. The furnishing was sparse, uncomfortably rough, and the clock ticked audibly. The entire situation seemed like a cruel joke. The walls, completely barren, seemed to swallow my vision in their starch blankness. I closed my eyes a moment, started listening to my breath, my heartbeat. Sitting there was more trying than running the longest marathon. My body ached at my pounding heart beat. I became dizzy at my inability to control my breath.

A nurse walked by a few times, asked me if I would like some water, told me there was a cafeteria a few floors up, open until midnight. I declined, I needed to be right here, waiting. I needed to be here.

A few more hours passed, the ticking clock informed me that I was nearing 6 hours in the waiting room. I didn't feel tired, even though on any other night I would be long asleep with John next to me.

Then, my heart rose as I saw Dr. Glen walking down the hallway toward me, clipboard in hand. I stood up, hoping for some good news, or some bad news, or any news at all. I opened my mouth, but no noise would come out. He walked by me then, without really turning to look at me.

"Ex.. excuse me!" I blurted out, my voice cracking.
"Yes?" he said, then, "Oh! You're the man that was waiting for John Eckert. He passed away an hour ago."
My vision blurred a little bit and I sat down.
"What.. I.. why didn't you.. tell.. me?"
"Must have forgotten." he said, then started walking away again.
"Wait! Please.. tell me did he say anything?" I pleaded with him, the tears forming in my eyes, blurring my vision and burning my throat.
"We contacted his family and informed them."
I realized that I had left my phone in the car. I felt as if I were floating. I was outside of this. This was ridiculous. This can't be happening. This is unreal!
"I.. I loved him, and he loved me, and I have been waiting here for hours and I could have seen him but you don't even bother to tell me when he dies? Who are you?" I shrieked, clawing at my quickly lapsing sanity, while simultaneously feeling utterly outside of this.
"I'm sorry for your loss, but I'm going home for the day. Good day to you." he said, and turned away.

I was completely numbed.

[a_unique_person]

Fade, I wasn't sure if you are saying this is your personal experience, or you are relating a hypothetical situation.

[Fade]

Neither.

I am relating an experience of a close friend.

It has become one of my deepest fears. In his particular situations I would have punched the doctor square in the face.

Anyway, it relates perfectly my feelings of marriage rights. This type of thing, as well as those broader in scope, happen constantly. They are happening as I am typing this. People being denied the right to see their loved ones, being denied the physical things they leave behind, being denied power of attorney. Being sued by embittered members of the dead persons family. Power of attorney is one of the very few rights I can reclaim. I have had to pay quite a bit of money to do so. I have, in effect, paid my poll tax. But, still no equality. I'm missing quite a few other rights.

[fishbob]

It does not affect me at all if any other 2 people in the world decide to form some kind of legal union and call it marriage or a contract or something else. It also does not affect anybody else in the world other than those particular 2 people. So why should I even have an opinion about it? No reason in the world, so I DO NOT CARE. I have no right to care, it is none of my business. Two people decide to be somehow united and care for each other, great. Be excellent to each other. Everybody else - butt out.

The question for politicians and judges is: Why should anybody else get to have an opinion?

[Darat]

Just reading some background on "gay marriage" in the US and saw this article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/18/SAMESEX.TMP


Two judges refused Tuesday to put an immediate halt to the parade of same-sex weddings at San Francisco City Hall, ensuring that gay and lesbian couples will be able to wed until at least the end of the week.

...snip...


So same-sex marriages are happening in the US? What happens if one of these couples move to a state that doesn't allow it? Is their marriage, in effect annulled?

[bug_girl]

yes, Darat, it is nullified. although, for most of them, it never really existed in the first place in most states. there also is a different status for men and women, because of the sodomy laws still on the book in several states.
i have many good friends with "civil unions" legally, but they say they "got married." (and the whole smashing glass thing was a little out of context at the jewish wedding of two guys :)) They got married out of love, not for the legal benefits. Basically, there really aren't any, although more and more employers are recognizing same sex unions. An employer's ability to offer benefits will stop if the legal actions under discussion are implemented

fishbob, i love your comment :)

[Cleopatra]

In Greece in cases of murder the spouses are excluded from obligatory interrogation by the police and none forces them to testify in court. This is one of the grossest discriminations that exist in this country.We are talking about cases of murder here.

I know people that they have been living together for ages and something happens and they are not covered by this law because they are not legally married.

What is just? To expand the coverage of the law or to abolish this stupid discriminating law?

So the whole gay marriages stuff was a bubble.Wrong it was not a bubble it was bad news. Kudos to the gay unions who managed to get covered by the descriminating laws. My condolencies to the rest of us that we will have to wait for a couple of more centuries in order that this stupid legislation is abolished because now we won't have only the heterosexual couples that will oppose to the abolishment of the privileges for the married but the gay couples as well.

Well done!!! Well done!!!


edited to add:

What drives me crazy is that some people consider the gay marriages as a progress of the society.

[davefoc]

For some people increasing the pool of people eligible for marriage comes down to their semantic, emotional or religious attachment to the concept of, "marriage" and they are much more open to establishing "civil union" contracts than expanding eligibility of "marriage" contracts. I feel a little of that myself but for me that's not much of an issue.

The responses to this thread have changed my thinking on the issue of expanded eligibility for marriage a little. I think for me now, the issue here is not whether gays should be allowed to marry or not, but rather what the special benefits of marriage should be and who should be eligible for them.

The list of special benefits that Roger linked to seemed fairly comprehensive:
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catID/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825

I don't think I've thought about this a whole lot. As a married person I've just taken the benefits for granted and not really thought a lot about whether I deserved them.

[Tmy]

The hospital example:

Isnt that really a hospital policy problem? What if theres a hetro couple thats not married. Maybe they dont belive in it, maybe its financial reasons whatever. Why should any of them not be able to visit?? Sure they CAN marry but why should they have to just so they can have medial say and access???

You can get things like Health care proxies. I wonder, do family memebers and spouces have to prove their status?

[Silicon]

Yes, TMY..

Note to self:

Remember to have future heart-attacks near non-discriminatory hospitals.


Gee... that solves it.:rolleyes:

[davefoc]

I kind of agree with Tmy on this. With respect to fade, the hospital visit thing seems like a small and easily corrected part of all these issues.

A heterosexual couple living together has got the same issue. It is already possible to designate somebody other than the person that is by law designated to speak for you if you are medically incapacitated. If the procedure is too costly, or too bureacratic right now, let's fix that. But extending the pool of people that are eligible for marriage because of this particular issue seems like overkill and it wouldn't help everybody that had the problem anyway.

[Silicon]

DaveFoc,

You solved the problem.


Well, that's one right down, only 1,399 rights to go before my family is equal to yours!

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm


Hallelujah!

[davefoc]

Hi SIlicon,
I wasn't sure whether there was a touch of sarcasm there or not, but the truth is I agree that there are lots of other benefits of heterosexual marriage that might not be justified or if they are justified should be extended to other folks that aren't currently eligible for marriage.

I put forth my wife's adult cousin who lives with his mother and probably will until one of them dies.

They are in a committed relationship, there is a principle wage earner that shares his wages with the other partner and they would probably be the ones making key medical decisions for the other.

Should they be able to enter a civil union similar to marriage so as to gain some of those advantages? In some ways the situation is different than with a gay couple that wants society to categorize them as married. In this case, I am sure that they don't seek any such designation. But it seems unfair that they shouldn't get the same advantages of other couples living in committed relationships.

A question for you: After this is all sorted out and gays have all the benefits and rights that they seek through the expansion of those eligible for marriage, should the society continue to provide benefits and rights to couples that can and do bear children in excess of those for other couples?

[Silicon]

I think that anyone who lives with their mother already get most of these benefits by being next of kin.

But I do agree that there are a lot of non-traditional households. I think that any household of 2 adults should be afforded the ability to lawfully join together as one legal and fiscal entity.

When they are raising children (foster, adopted, or biological), it becomes imperitive for the well-being of the children that the adults have the ability to act as one legal and fiscal unit.




edit:

Oh, and sorry for the sarcasm thing. I couldn't tell if it was warranted or not. Seems like it wasn't.